Mr. C - thanks for the compliment. However, I am not interested in interpreting any questions from the knuckleheads regarding taxation (this comment is not aimed at you). They would be unable to locate their arses with both hands on a map.

On numerous occasions, I have attempted to explain the impact of the territorial taxation of US corporations. When BMW can make money anywhere in the world and pay taxes where earned; then be free to reinvest those earnings anywhere in the world that is advantageous to the company, even Germany without an additional layer of taxation on the investment - they win. When Ford is not free to do the same; the Left is up in arms about all the jobs gone overseas. The real problem is not that jobs are overseas (that was always going to happen - the global markets the Left loves); but, rather US investment of foreign earnings back in the US is going to be hit by a "surcharge". So, Ford makes the decision, all things considered equal, build a new plant in Mexico at x-cost or Texas at x-cost PLUS 35% tax hit - what would you do?

As for individual taxes - the Bush tax cuts actually moved more taxpayers off the tax rolls and increased the amount of taxes taken from the high-earners. Today, roughly 47-50% of the public pay zero income taxes; and, many get refundable tax credits; so in essence they are at a negative rate (not a bad deal). While, the top 1% pay almost 50% of all incomes taxes. Prior to the Bush cuts, that number was closer to 20%. So, you would think the Left would love the vastly increase progressive impact of the Bush tax cuts.

So, if you are going to provide a tax cut to individuals; of course those paying the most will benefit the most. After all, how can someone paying zero income taxes benefit; they already are at zero tax cost.

When tax policy gets reformed, there are losers and winners. The key here for me is the corporate reform - I would like to see 15% rather than 20%. Corporations in essence do not pay taxes, the consumer pays them. So, this is a consumer pricing win. Plus, by making the US a "tax haven" for corporations will likely goose the economy big time (the US is the largest market in the world - if foreign entities can come here an pay 15% - they will come). And, the repatriation of foreign earnings will be a non inflationary (no new money is being printed - it is already in the system) injection of capital into the US. Even, if the FE are used in a share back program, it will generate revenues for the Treasury in the terms of capital gains income on taxable shareholders.

Mr. C - much of what you read here is what I call financial/monetary pen!s envy; nothing more, nothing less; coupled with a profound lack of financial / tax policy and the economic impact on the economy.

Long ago the tax code became way too complex for the average taxpayer. It was built gradually via donors, and is not anything similar to 1986.

Business wise 1986 was the era when we switched to an IBM double floppy, from an NCR bookkeeping machine. We had certified financials. with an audit. Our CPA was mainly an advisor with a pile of "work papers".

Fast forward to 2017, like most small business we use Sage, a sophisticated version of Quick Books. Where you can move back and forth correcting entries, no more green bar and reversing entries, and an audit trail.

Our bank doesn't require Certified Statements. A first year accounting student can do our closing entries. Very efficient. But our accounting fees have soared due to tax forms. Combined with reporting to Commerce, Labor and State, has created a nightmare for small business.

If these Bills alter the compliance, I'm all in. No offense to the tax-prep world but it's an expense we can no longer afford in today's marketplace. Given the fact that my competitors are teenagers who live in a factory that operates 24/6 in mainland China.

I read all the pundits, including Krugman. all people who have never had to sweat out a payroll. They are clueless.